Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (52814)	3/10/2008 12:25:10 PM
From: Katelew	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 543205

Cause I'd really like to know how McCain wouldn't be able to carry on, especially in light of the fact that the foreign policy theme that he runs on will be "no surrender." Ed, were you as astonished as I was by McCain's recent ad....the Churchill thing? The tone-deafness of it was breathtaking considering the public poll support for getting out of Iraq as quickly as possible. I'm well aware of Hillary's negatives, but I think either of our candidates could trounce McCain in the fall when the differences between them will be clearly laid out for the voters. At that point it moves away from a contest between "experience' and 'change' and becomes a contest between 'change' or 'more of the same'.

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (52814)	3/10/2008 1:23:42 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543205

then you can explain how it is that Bush/Cheney have been able to not only continue but to increase our presence in Iraq while the majority of Congress and the American people oppose the war, the military is using bailing wire to keep it going, and our treasure is getting more and more depleted? The status quo is always the default. New initiatives--"carrying out those beliefs in any grand way"--require support. Don't forget, Iraq started out with support. I strongly suggest that it's a mistake to generalize and dismiss a move to the right by simply characterizing it as moving "not so much." Once again, I'm talking orders of magnitude. "Not so much" does not stand as a sole (or one of two) justification for choosing the opposition. That was the context of my response. You may not like maintaining the status quo in Iraq and on the SC--neither do I--but the status quo in two areas, even important ones, doesn't seem to me to be sufficient rationale for writing off a candidate. It's not a pro for McCain but it's not a fatal con, either. That's all I'm suggesting.